Overview

July 2026 witnessed several important Supreme Court judgments interpreting constitutional powers, statutory provisions and procedural safeguards. The decisions addressed remission under Article 161, the use of AI and judicial precedents, Article 226 jurisdiction over private bodies, succession rights in agricultural property, judicial interference in arbitration, perjury proceedings, juvenile justice and evidence recorded in an accused’s absence. Collectively, these judgments provide important legal principles for understanding constitutional interpretation, procedural compliance and the evolving role of courts in India.

Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana

    Date: 1 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1250

    Facts: The appellant, a life convict in Haryana, sought premature release under the State’s 2002 Remission Policy. The State argued that the later 2008 Policy, framed under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, had superseded the earlier policy.

    Issue: Whether the 2002 Remission Policy, framed in exercise of the Governor’s constitutional power under Article 161, could be overridden by the subsequent statutory remission policy.

    Decision: The Supreme Court held that the 2002 Policy retained its constitutional character because it was framed under Article 161. A statutory policy under the CrPC could not override or nullify a policy based on constitutional power. The Court also held State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar to be per incuriam for disregarding the binding larger-Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish. The appellant’s remission claim was therefore directed to be considered under the 2002 Policy.

    Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.

    Date: 2 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 INSC 668

    Facts: Insolvency proceedings against a corporate guarantor were admitted by the NCLT and affirmed by the NCLAT. The tribunals relied upon several judicial authorities that were found to be non-existent, inaccurate or AI-generated/hallucinated.

    Issue: Whether an adjudicatory decision based upon fake or hallucinated judicial precedents can stand in law, and what role AI may play in judicial decision-making.

    Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders, holding that reliance upon fake or hallucinated precedents fundamentally contaminates adjudication. A decision based on non-existent legal material is no decision in the eyes of law and amounts to a serious subversion of the rule of law. The Court stressed that AI may be used as an aid, but judicial decision-making must remain under human control. The Section 7 IBC application was restored for fresh consideration.

    Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

    Date: 7 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 INSC 670

    Facts: Ajay Vijh, an advocate and former panel counsel of Canara Bank, was placed on the Indian Banks Association’s “Caution List” following allegations concerning a legal opinion. The High Court had rejected his writ petition, holding that the IBA was not “State” under Article 12.

    Issue: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained against the IBA and whether an advocate could be placed on its Caution List for professional negligence.

    Decision: The Supreme Court held that Article 226 jurisdiction can extend to private bodies performing public functions. It found the Caution List to have a public-law element and held that professional misconduct falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. The IBA could remove an advocate from its own panel but could not publicly blacklist him for mere negligence. His inclusion in the Caution List was declared impermissible and the respondents were directed to remove his name.

    Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon

    Date: 9 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1302

    Facts: The dispute concerned inheritance to ancestral property governed by the customary law of the Oraon tribal community. The respondents claimed succession rights on the basis that an uncle-in-law had inducted the niece’s husband as a “ghardamad” or resident son-in-law.

    Issue: Whether an uncle-in-law could create the status of “ghardamad” under recognised Oraon customary law so as to confer inheritance rights.

    Decision: The Supreme Court held that a person relying upon custom must prove its existence, antiquity, certainty and continuous observance. The recognised Oraon custom permitted a ghardamad arrangement by the landowner or his widow, not by an uncle-in-law. The alleged partition or lease document also could not create ownership because the respondents had failed to establish a valid title. The Court therefore found that the concurrent findings below were based on an erroneous application of customary law. It set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreed the appellant’s suit.

    Mahinder v. Puran Singh

    Date: 14 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1335

    Facts: The case concerned the preferential right of Class I heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in relation to inherited agricultural land. The courts below had recognised the plaintiff’s preferential right.

    Issue: Whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to agricultural property inherited by Class I heirs, or whether agricultural land falls outside Parliament’s legislative competence in this field.

    Decision: The Supreme Court held that Section 22 applies to inherited agricultural property. The right of pre-emption under Section 22 is essentially an incident of succession and not merely a law regulating transfer of agricultural land. The Court noted that Entry 5 of the Concurrent List permits Parliament to legislate on intestate succession, including succession involving agricultural land. It also distinguished the earlier decision in Atam Prakash. Consequently, the Court upheld the preferential right of Class I heirs and dismissed the appeal.

    Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.

    Date: 14 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1330

    Facts: An arbitral tribunal rejected a jurisdictional objection raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Gauhati High Court entertained a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and stayed the arbitral proceedings.

    Issue: Whether an order of an arbitral tribunal rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 can be challenged immediately under Article 227, before the final arbitral award.

    Decision: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration. It held that a Section 16 order rejecting a jurisdictional objection is ordinarily not open to challenge under Article 227 merely because a party is dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision. The statutory scheme requires the arbitral proceedings to continue, with the issue capable of being raised under Section 34 after the final award. The Court set aside the High Court’s intervention and directed the arbitral tribunal to proceed independently. The judgment reinforces party autonomy and the legislative policy of avoiding piecemeal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings.

    Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar

    Date: 21 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1367

    Facts: Criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were initiated against a litigant and his advocate for allegedly making incorrect statements in pleadings. The alleged errors were subsequently explained as typographical or inadvertent mistakes.

    Issue: Whether a mere “wrong statement” is sufficient to invoke Section 340 CrPC and initiate prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC.

    Decision: The Supreme Court held that a wrong statement is not necessarily a false statement. Before initiating prosecution under Section 340 CrPC, the Court must find a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood and must independently record that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere mistakes, inadvertent errors or typographical inaccuracies cannot automatically justify perjury proceedings. The Court also held that the appellate court could not cure the deficiencies in the original order by supplying findings that had not been recorded earlier. The orders directing prosecution were therefore quashed and the appeal was allowed.

    X4 v. State of Bihar

    Date: 21 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1363

    Facts: The appellant was a child in conflict with law who was above 16 years of age and faced allegations including murder. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment and directed that the child be tried as an adult before the Children’s Court. The High Court affirmed the decision.

    Issue: Whether murder constitutes a “heinous offence” under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and whether the Juvenile Justice Board properly conducted the preliminary assessment required under Section 15.

    Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decision directing the child to be tried as an adult. It held that murder under Section 302 IPC is a “heinous offence” for purposes of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Board must independently assess the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand its consequences and the circumstances of the alleged offence. It must consider the entire relevant material, including social investigation reports, witness statements and interaction with the child. Expert opinion is only an aid and does not bind the Board.

    Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

    Date: 31 July 2026

    Citation: 2026 INSC 775

    Facts: The appellant was an accused who had been absent from the proceedings. Evidence of witnesses had been recorded under Section 299 CrPC, which permits evidence to be recorded in the absence of an absconding accused when statutory conditions are satisfied. The prosecution later sought to rely upon that evidence against the appellant.

    Issue: Whether testimony recorded in the absence of an accused can subsequently be used against him when there was no valid order under Section 299 CrPC establishing both jurisdictional conditions required by the provision.

    Decision: The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 299 requires proof of two conditions: the accused must be absconding and there must be no immediate prospect of his arrest. These requirements must be established conjunctively before evidence can be recorded in his absence for later use. Since the necessary order recording satisfaction of these jurisdictional facts was absent, the testimony could not subsequently be relied upon against the appellant. The Court consequently emphasised strict compliance with Section 299 because it operates as an exception to the accused’s valuable right of cross-examination.

    Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications

    Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.